Christian View

2. Because of this, when God reveals things to us, we know that what He reveals is true. The Bible stands as an authoritative communication to us from God Himself, and we can often discern truth or falsehood simply by comparing a particular claim with Biblical revelation.

Christians know this because the Bible is our authority, and the Bible tells us this is so.

However, we can also see (1) via the impossibility of the contrary, or in other words, by demonstrating that not-(1) is clearly false, even beginning with non-Christian presuppositions, as long as we accept the veracity of the law of non-contradiction, which states that nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same way.

Here we must note the important distinction between what God causes and what God states or reveals. He may cause someone to believe something false. He may cause someone to lie. He may cause someone to speak incorrectly. But this is a dramatically different claim than the claim that God Himself lies or speaks incorrectly.

For example, if I take my dog out on a leash, and proceed very rapidly down the road such that my dog is forced to run, it could be said that I have caused my dog to run. However, if I am causing my dog to run by moving rapidly down the road in an automated wheelchair, I myself am not running. For me to cause my dog to run and for me to run are two dramatically different propositions. Likewise, for God to cause someone to lie, and for God Himself to lie, are two dramatically different propositions.

If direct and immediate (as opposed to indirect or mediated) communications from God were ever false, whether lies or simply errant, then there would be absolutely no way to confirm the truth or falsity of any belief whatsoever, since all beliefs find their uncaused first cause in Him. Since "the buck stops" with Him, if there were ever any doubt of His truthfulness or veracity, there could by definition be no higher authority by which to confirm it. We would never know whether or not anything were true or false, and we would have no way to confirm any belief. He is the appellate judge of truth, and without an honest judge, the truth can never be known.

In other words, if God were not perfectly truthful, knowledge would again be impossible. Knowledge is not impossible, therefore God is perfectly truthful.

Most importantly for each of us, the God who never lies has told us that we are all sinners, deserving of both death and damnation (Romans 3:23, 6:23; Matthew 8:12). He has further stated that if we trust in His Son, Jesus, who made things right for us through His own death (Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 4:10), we can be saved from destruction (Romans 10:9). If you have not yet put your trust in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your evil deeds, you have the promise of the one who is truth that if you do, you will be saved, and if you do not, you cannot be saved (John 3:18; Acts 4:12).

Comments

Tim,
To what extent, if any, have your alleged one-on-one conversations with god impacted upon or influenced your answer to this question?

—
Tony

All truth is dependent on conditions, some we know and understand... others are unknown to us. For this reason we must always approach the idea of truth with a lot of humility. We can employ rational methods to help us identify the truth of a situation, and how to obtain a desired outcome however that truth will always be dependent on variables we do and do not fully understand. Scriptures may sometimes be able to shine light on some variables not normally understood, however they are also employed to obscure the truth. Examples might include Christians who used the Bible to justify slavery, racism, inter-racial marriage, and now gay marriage.

—
Mark C

I think Timothy has established quite clearly that you don't need to run yourself to cause a dog to run and therefore God does not need to lie himself in order to cause someone to lie. But so what? This is not the crux of the matter. The real issue is one of responsibility. For example I could train a dog to kill on command and then have it kill without having to kill myself. In such a case who is responsible? Well for most of us the answer is rather obvious but according to Paul the apostle, when it comes to God and man, man is the guilty one as Romans 9, a chapter by the way which most Christians don't even believe, clearly states, when Paul, anticipating such objections asks a question in return, "But who are you, a man, to answer back to God?" This is tough to swallow and I for one do not but then I am an atheist believe that the bible is simply the word of man. My study of Romans 9 over the years has caused me to think of the God portrayed by Paul as The Mad Potter!

—
Lucretius

Timothy, two questions.
1. How does your argument that God is truth, in light of the Bible, stand to reason against the fact that Christians can't agree on what the Bible says?
2. If God causes people to do evil, as your reply states, then how can those people be held accountable to God for things outside their control?

—
Matt

Matt,

Since Christians are not the measure of truth, our subjective understanding is not logically relevant to the objective question of "what is true?". However, we all recognize that even though it isn't logically relevant, we aren't justified in declaring that something is true unless we recognize it to be so, which requires that we understand it.

My claims on this website represent my own understanding of the Bible, following the Protestant Christian tradition of personal study. When and where there seems to be justifiable disagreement on a subject within Christendom, I try to accurately represent that disagreement. There is no disagreement on the question of whether or not God is truth.

So, in answer to (1), we note that (A) Christians agreeing is irrelevant to the fact of the matter; and (B) should it be found relevant, Christians do in fact agree on this point.

[continued]

—
Timothy McCabe

[continued]

Regarding (2), I think the question is misguided in several ways, making it difficult to address. Note that (A) I am not claiming that intentional sins are outside our control, rather that what we will do with what we control is predetermined by God; (B) there is no logical inconsistency with claiming that we are to be held accountable for things outside of our control; (C) societies hold people accountable for unintentional or involuntary actions all the time, for example:

Imagine playing baseball in the park and hitting the ball through a neighbor's window. Who ought to pay for it? What if your child knocks over a display in a store and products break -- again, who ought to pay for them?

[continued]

—
Timothy McCabe

[continued]

So I ask you in return, why is there a problem with holding someone accountable for actions they themselves actually commit? No matter what we do, we can always say "I did it because...", but this simply means our actions are the result of something. It doesn't mean we ought not to be held accountable for them.

—
Timothy McCabe

Timothy; how does one understand "God's truth"? If man is fallible and prone to error and misunderstanding, how does one know what God's truth is? According to conservative Protestant Christianity, it's in the Bible. Yet we have thousands of different sects all claiming to accurately and truthfully represent the "truths" in the Bible. So it's apparent to me that the Bible, at the very least, requires some outside source in order to understand, and at worst, too vague to be of any real and practical use. If God is true, and man is fallible, it's practically impossible to know what God's truth is.

—
Matt

As for your response to my second point: the difference between the law holding us accountable for an unintentional act and God's judgement, is that in the law, the punishment fits the crime. Also, there isn't really such a thing as "unintentional"; there's always a causal link to some intentional action or thought. As for the parent paying for a child's mistake: the parent is responsible for the child until it's of a sufficient age to take responsibility for itself. The analogy fails, simply because it's illogical. The comparisons don't fit.

—
Matt

Timothy, one more question: you said that if God did not exist and were not perfectly truthful, it would be impossible to know anything. How can you logically demonstrate this statement?

—
Matt

Tim,
Your arguments are absurd in the extreme and consist of little more than bald assertions, which are made without evidence and can therefore be dismissed without evidence.
Whether you like it or not, the fact is that Christians do NOT agree on what the bible actually says, and the bible PERMITS such disagreement. I have clearly demonstrated this to you on several occasions. Christian disagreement on the bible is actually extremely relevant, because if the Christian god exists then hell exists, and if hell exists then there is a very real possibility that we could end up there for eternity if we are not made right with god.

—
Tony

We rely on instruction from god as to what we must do to be right with him – there is simply no other way for us to know this. Since we are fallible creatures, this instruction must be clear and unambiguous. Such clear and unambiguous instruction does not exist, in the bible or elsewhere. Therefore, either (a) your bible is not the word of god or (b) your god is happy to deliberately mislead us with garbage instructions about how we are to be made right with him, thereby condemning us to an eternity of punishment through no fault of our own, which is manifestly and massively unjust.

—
Tony

You could, of course, get out of this with your oft-repeated claim that god explains all these apparent problems in his conversations with you in your head. In the absence of any evidence of that, however, it behoves me to dismiss that line of “evidence”. Unless and until you can provide some evidence, I have the right to insist on you answering the points made without resorting to super-natural conversations with the divine.

—
Tony

Tony, great points. You are right to say that Tim's arguments don't hold up to even the most elementary amt. of scrutiny. He is attempting to hold all to the standard that he personally draws from Scripture. Then he claims that it is the Scriptures we're bound to an NOT his interpretations of the Scriptures. Catholics (i.e. Christians who don't hold to novel interpretations of Scripture which appeared in the 1500s and have since multiplied exponentially) are not in this bind. God did not leave us in Tim's situation at all. Tim has chosen it for himself. God left His Church with Scripture, a living Teaching Authority (The Magisterium) and authoritative Tradition. So we can know precisely what God's will is concerning modern matters of faith (read Humanae Vitae or Ordinatio Sacerdotalis for examples of such teaching). Tim may believe in Christ. But he does not represent the "Christian" position any more than the next person who has access to that Catholic book we call the Bible.

—
herbert

Tony,

The elementary basics of salvation can be deduced by anyone through inherent knowledge (Romans 1:20, 2:15), universal experiential knowledge (Romans 3:12, 3:23), and pure logical reasoning (Matthew 19:26; Psalm 135:6). Even without the Bible, man can and ought to conclude that there is a God, we are not perfect in His sight, and He is the only one who can fix this problem -- our only hope is to trust in His mercy. The Bible provides us with amazing and explicit details of how God historically offered us the "good news" that He has in fact accomplished the only solution there can possibly be. Salvifically, the Bible serves to make our hope in His mercy sure.

God bless.

—
Timothy McCabe

Matt,

"the Bible, at the very least, requires some outside source in order to understand"

This is certainly true with regard to many elements therein -- the outside source is the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:14; John 14:26; Ephesians 3:5; Hebrews 10:15). However, it should be noted that everyone, Christian or otherwise, agrees on the basics of what the Bible teaches at the most fundamental level. There is a Creator God, Jesus died so that we could live if we have faith in Him, the Bible itself is authoritative, etc. No one I have ever met will dispute that the Bible teaches these things.

You're agreeing with me that sometimes people ought to be held accountable for things they did not do. If they did not do them, certainly you would agree that they did not intentionally do them. Yet you take issue with God condemning someone for what that person has in fact intentionally done, and your justification for this seems to be nothing more than "it's different". I submit to you that you are engaging in the fallacy of special pleading.

Therefore, since all acquired knowledge finds it's ultimate source in God Himself (or it doesn't exist at all), if He were untrustworthy, we would have no basis for trusting anything that comes from Him:

Therefore, for knowledge to exist, the following two things must be true:

1. God is in charge.

2. God is absolutely reliable.

God bless.

—
Timothy McCabe

Tim,
Yet again your arguments consist of little more than (a) avoidance of the questions as asked and (b) assertions made without evidence, which I am therefore entitled to dismiss out of hand. Quoting from the bible does not constitute evidence since you know that I do not consider that book to be such, for reasons which I have explained to you on numerous occasions but which you blithely ignore.
However, I will ask one straightforward question, and this goes to the very heart of your assertion that “...everyone, Christian or otherwise, agrees on the basics of what the Bible teaches at the most fundamental level”. Do they indeed? Let’s examine that in more detail.
Does the bible say that baptism is necessary for salvation? I have asked this question before and you have dodged the issue. What about a straight answer to a straight question, eh?

—
Tony

Timothy,
I asked for a logical defense of your statement that without God, knowledge is impossible. All you have done is state your opinion, without offering anything tangible and rational. We can see this in some of the great debates of science versus the church throughout history. Not only that, but the historical and scientific inaccuracies in the Bible should be enough to convince anyone that your statement is not logical. It's one thing to state a personal opinion, it's another thing completely to put forth that opinion as truth without any verification. How do you expect people to believe your point of view if you can offer nothing tangible and rational to verify your statements?

—
Matt

Timothy,
The Holy Spirit cannot be an outside verification of what the Bible teaches. We run into the same problem with the various churches. If you have four different people of various theological beliefs, each claiming to be filled with the Holy Spirit, who do you believe, and how do you know? At the best, you have to admit that "God's truth" is personal, and not universal, and that the Bible is vague, at best, and each person is to understand it for what it means to themselves. There's nothing objective, or even tangible, to verify any kind of truth to what the Bible teaches. And your examples, not all Christians agree on. The Quakers are a good example, not to mention liberal/progressives and mystics.

—
Matt

Matt,

"All you have done is state your opinion, without offering anything tangible and rational."

Wow. You didn't read my links at all, did you?

"your examples, not all Christians agree on. The Quakers are a good example, not to mention liberal/progressives and mystics."

Which of my three examples do these groups each disagree with, and can you provide me with some sort of evidence of your claim, like a link to a Quaker website that says as much?

Thanks.

—
Timothy McCabe

Tony,

"Does the bible say that baptism is necessary for salvation?"

The Bible says that it is not necessary for salvation. I intend to answer the question in depth as a column (as you originally posed it) rather than a comment -- just haven't found the time yet.

God bless.

—
Timothy McCabe

Tim, thanks for that refreshingly straightforward answer. The problem of course is that the person writing in the link below, who is a Christian and bible scholar, fundamentally disagrees with you, and he has biblical authority to back him up.

(continued)
It's not my intention to enter into a debate with you about obscure theological issues. I have no opinion on this matter whatsoever. I simply want to point out that your claim that "everyone...agrees on the basics of what the bible teaches" is wrong. They most certainly do not. Why is this important? Well, if you've got it wrong you’re going to hell, Tim. And god has allowed that to happen by giving you unclear, inconsistent and ambiguous instructions in his book. Hardly fair, is it?

—
Tony

1st Peter 3:21 John 3:5: Timothy, is this another case of consistently believing everything the Bible clearly teaches except when you don't?

—
herbert

Tony,

"if you've got it wrong you’re going to hell, Tim. And god has allowed that to happen by giving you unclear, inconsistent and ambiguous instructions in his book. Hardly fair, is it?"

Actually, if you disobey your God-given conscience you deserve hell, but if you trust in God then He gives you a gift of life that you don't deserve.

Look, your argument seems to intend to prove that God doesn't do everything within His power to bring every single person to heaven. But I already agree with this, because that's what the Bible teaches.

I'm sorry you don't like being a created thing subject to your Creator.

God bless.

—
Timothy McCabe

Timothy,
I did read your links. You stated that knowledge without God is impossible because everything is random and chaotic. However, this is untrue. Nothing is random, but subject to the law of cause and effect. This makes knowledge without God not only possible, but probable. Knowledge is based on observation and testing, regardless of how anything came about. One can observe that a flower grows from a seed, with sunlight and proper soil nutrition. Your statement that knowledge without God is impossible because everything is random is patently absurd.

—
Matt

Timothy,
You stated "There is a Creator God, Jesus died so that we could live if we have faith in Him, the Bible itself is authoritative." Quakers don't believe the Bible is authoritative, they believe that the "light of Christ within all" is the highest authority of faith and practice. Liberals don't believe the Bible is authoritative, nor do they believe that God created everything based on a literal understanding of Genesis. They also believe salvation is based not on faith, but on action (works). Mystics have a whole different view of how spirituality works, which is why they tended to clash with the church authorities throughout history. Have you not done study of other denominations and Christian ideas other than your own?

—
Matt

Matt,

You and I were discussing whether or not "people agree that the Bible claims [X]", not whether or not "people believe [X]". Of course there are many people who claim that they do not believe in a Creator God, or who claim that they do not believe that the Bible is authoritative, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the assertion I made that you were supposedly refuting.

[continued]

—
Timothy McCabe

[continued]

"Nothing is random, but subject to the law of cause and effect."

How do you know that? If Atheism is true, you have no justification for this claim. The only reason you believe it to be true is because some random accident caused you to believe it to be true, and you would have concluded the negation just as easily had a different random accident caused you to.

"Knowledge is based on observation and testing."

How do you know that? If Atheism is true, you have no justification for this claim. The only reason you believe it to be true is because some random accident caused you to believe it is true, and you would have concluded the negation just as easily had a different random accident caused you to.

If Atheism is true, you may as well be saying "eating small with never sits quietly under smocked chicken". It would be a claim with equivalent justification -- none at all.

—
Timothy McCabe

Timothy,
"You and I were discussing whether or not..."
Actually, it proves my point that the Bible, by itself, cannot be held as the standard of truth, nor can the Holy Spirit be the outside source of how it is to be understood. Many Christian deny what you assert to be fundamental to the belief system.

—
Matt

Timothy,
"How do you know that? If Atheism is true, you have no justification for this claim. The only reason you believe it to be true is because some random accident caused you to believe it to be true, and you would have concluded the negation just as easily had a different random accident caused you to."
This statement is based on nothing more than your belief, and the desire to not see what's true. Say it all you want, reality shows otherwise. You have failed to demonstrate how your beliefs are true, or how the other side is false. You have simply stated opinions, and have not backed them up with any kind of logical reasoning behind them. If the Bible declared the grass was blue, and the sky was pink, would you believe it, or belief what reality showed? Science continually demonstrates how it's ideas are true, and your denial is based on nothing more than your belief, without any way of proving how they're true. How do we believe you? Just take your word for it?

—
Matt

Tim,
Well what about that, eh? After that one anomalous glitch in which you actually gave a straight answer to a straight question for once, you’re right back to your usual tactics of completely ignoring the question (presumably in the hope that it’ll go away) or answering a completely different question that wasn’t even asked.

—
Tony

(continued)
You have not explained why your allegedly authoritative bible gives conflicting instructions to Christians, thereby disproving your assertion that "everyone...agrees on the basics of what the bible teaches". It is abundantly clear that you could not be more wrong in this assertion and everyone most definitely does not agree. The Christian fellow that I quoted above appears to be under the impression that your bible tells you that you need to be baptised in order to be saved and he appears to think that the bible is absolutely 100% clear on this. You believe the opposite. You both say that the bible is absolutely definitive on this but it is not, as your disagreement proves beyond any doubt. You can’t both be right.

—
Tony

(continued)
Well, you might argue, what’s the big deal? Whoever said the bible SHOULD be 100% clear on these things? Well, let’s examine the implications if it isn’t. You say that you do NOT need to be baptised to be made right with god and that the instructions given in the bible in regards to baptism are clear and unambiguous. However, your trust in god’s instructions may very well be misplaced. Your interpretation of god’s instructions could be completely wrong, and the Christian fellow from Apologetics Press would definitely say that you are indeed and in fact completely wrong. If that actually IS the case, and you are indeed incorrect in your interpretation of the bible, then you are not “saved” and are not made right with god (no matter what you might think) – the important point being that your god, through his alleged holy book, has allowed and permitted you to be under the mistaken impression that you’re “saved” when in actual fact you’re most definitely not.

—
Tony

(Continued)
By the way, that point I was making about “fairness” doesn’t apply to me, Tim – it applies to YOU. Since I do not have any belief in god it matters nothing to me whether he is or is not fair or just. But from your perspective it matters a great deal, and it seems to me that you are saying that you would be quite happy to go to hell knowing that to the best of your knowledge you had followed god’s instructions in the bible, only to find that you’d followed the “wrong” set of instructions, and that god permitted this state of affairs to exist by allowing his holy book to contain conflicting and contradictory instructions?

Understanding the Bible is not necessary for salvation. For example, Abraham was saved without the Bible (Romans 4).

This simple concept fully addresses your reason for bringing up disagreements about baptism as well as whether or not God wants everyone saved, not to mention anything else you want to use as proof that not all Christians agree on everything the Bible says.

From your perspective, on the other hand, I consistently avoid discussing anything you bring up, with only one notable exception. My conclusion therefore is that there is no point in continuing this conversation with you.

You can look for a fuller response to your question about baptism specifically in the near future as a column rather than a comment, as I found that question very much worth addressing, but as stated above, have not had the time to deal with it properly yet in writing.

God bless.

—
Timothy McCabe

Tim, your last comment was utterly absurd, and an egregious and ridiculous attempt at moving the goalposts. That's not ad hominem, that's a simple statement of fact. I say this because you (a) justify your assertions with copious verses from the bible, (b) claim that the bible is "...authoritative communication to us from god himself" and (c) claim that "...the bible is our authority"...and then go on to claim that understanding the bible is not necessary for salvation! What nonsense!

—
Tony

Timothy,
I've found your lack of proper reasoning to be suspect. You have allowed your belief to blind you to reality. You use circular arguments to back up your claims, while setting up straw-men arguments against the opposition. It's this kind of dishonesty that turns many people off to Christianity. You have failed to address many of Tony's and my arguments, opting instead to repeat the party line. Why don't we use proper reason, and address the points brought up, rather than engage in meaningless arguing?

—
Matt

Look, I'm just trying to help Timothy, but you have to stop using the bible as "evidence" for your points. if you keep using the "Because God said so" argument it's not going to convince people that you're right, they'll just think you can't use proper evidence. And while I think Richard sometimes generalises I have to take more fault with some of the huge assumptions/assertions you use without explaining, and the fact you seem to have prejudged what exactly an Atheist believes (odd seeing as the term only describes what they don't believe) is deeply off-putting when considering if you are using reasonable arguments.

—
TrulyBritish

FAO Matt and TrulyBritish - Tim's world-view is that of a presuppositionalist, and that's the major difficulty, inasmuch as it is a fundamentally logically invalid position based on question-begging and circular reasoning. Tim has said on at least one occasion on these pages that he sees nothing inherently wrong with circular reasoning, which I think clearly illustrates at least one of the major difficulties in having a discussion with him. The approach that I have taken is to try to point out to Tim the logical, moral and intellectual cul-de-sacs that his world-view and theology leads to, obviously without much success unfortunately. There are none so blind etc etc.

—
Tony

Tony,
I can see your point, I seriously cannot see why Tim was allowed to represent the Christian side (and by the looks he is the most vocal of the columnists) when he's arguments lack so much. (And I really do say this with no offensive intent).

—
TrulyBritish

TrulyBritish,

Can you show me a specific example of where I do not accurately represent scripture? I would definitely appreciate it.

Thanks.

—
Timothy McCabe

Tim,
I didn't say accurately represent scripture, I said represent the Christian side. I've debated religion with plenty of Christians without them having to say "We know it's true because the bible says so" or making huge assertions without actually presenting evidence. The only evidence I think I've ever seen you write comes from bible verses.

—
TrulyBritish

Do you think I accurately represent scripture then?

If I am a Christian, and if, within the Christian worldview, the Bible is the most authoritative tool the Christian has, why would I not be consistent with my views and use the Bible as my most authoritative tool?

Generally, in debate, I use a 2-pronged approach. 1) I presuppose Christianity to demonstrate that it makes sense of reality. 2) I presuppose the opponent's position to demonstrate that it doesn't make sense. That's generally. Specifically, however, it is often the case that one or the other of these prongs are not necessary, depending on the situation.

But most relevant to this forum, this website is not about *proving my position. It is about *declaring my position... and Dr. Carrier declaring his, and Mr. Williams declaring his, etc. If I am declaring my position, and my position is the Biblical position, of course I will use the Bible to demonstrate it.

—
Timothy McCabe

I know I am acting as some sort of peanut gallery here. But Tim, the idea that Christians have always held to the idea that "the Bible is the most authoritative tool" at a Christian's disposal is not the case. The Church that Christ established is the rule of faith, the measure and standard of Christian orthodoxy. You pick and choose from among the Bible's verses those according to which you convince yourself of the validity of your totally made-up philosophical system. Then you present your peculiar conclusions as orthodoxy. If you derive all you teach from theCatholic Scriptures, and believe those Scriptures to be perspicuous, why not leave them be and let them speak for themselves? Why do you go out of your way to play a meditative role?

—
herbert

Herbert,

"the idea that Christians have always held to the idea that 'the Bible is the most authoritative tool' at a Christian's disposal is not the case."

If by Catholic you mean Roman, the fact that Rome accepts the same scriptures that I accept doesn't mean that I must follow Rome any more than it means Rome must follow me. It seems you're implying a "post-hoc ergo procter-hoc" error ("after" thus "because of"). The scriptures don't originate with Rome. They were written by the Apostles and Prophets, none of whom were Roman. I accept the writings of the Apostles and Prophets because of the work of the Holy Spirit in my life. If Rome accepts them too, at least Rome got one thing right.

TrulyBritish,
I've come to the conclusion that in almost all cases it actually doesn't matter what you say to Tim. More often than not, he'll respond to a question which bears absolutely no relation to the one that you asked, or he'll claim that you said something which you didn't and answer that instead (as he did with you in his response to your comment to me above). At least he hasn't brought up the alleged telepathic conversations that he apparently regularly has with god - well, not this time anyway.

—
Tony

Every heretic under the sun believed himself to be acting faithfully to the Scriptures. The Scriptures however are not and were not ever intended to be THE rule of faith. You even said that Jesus "seemed" to hold this position (that the Scriptures were the rule of faith). If you mean He affirmed the Scriptures, sure. But if you mean that Christ invested in them the kind of position that you ascribe to them (i.e. that Tim's mind + the Bible = orthodoxy), that's where you're mistaken. Your philosophical system of belief is not divinely revealed it's a self-assuring tradition of men. Non-catholic christianity amts. to many people disagreeing with each other while appealing to the same authority (their own disagreement, however, is the very thing that refutes their position). It's christian relativism. The Atheists on this website are trying to get you to see it, too.

—
herbert

Herbert, one of the main problems is that presuppositionalists, despite the evidence being right there in front of them, must and do pretend that there is no disagreement among Christians as to what the bible says. This is not logical, reasonable or rational. It is brainwashing, pure and simple. The presuppositional world-view insulates its adherents from the need to examine the coherence or adequacy of their beliefs in the light of other knowledge by presupposing that all other non-Christian knowledge is flawed and incoherent – hence begging the question. This is also how people like Tim can deny the fact of evolution, despite the mountains of supporting evidence.

—
Tony

Tony, I agree with you... but I am still a christian. Philosophically, I admire Alfred North Whitehead. And barring any divine revelation, would be thoroughly Whiteheadian. I, however, do accept God's revelation in Christ. But I don't use that starting point to discredit opposing positions. I use that as a starting point and look for ways to reconcile my faith in Jesus Christ with (that which appears to be) contradictory evidence. Further, as a catholic, I don't have to deny disagreement among Christians. I look at the Church as the measure of orthodoxy. Those who disagree with the Church dissent from Christian teaching knowingly or in ignorance. Thanks for addressing my comments.

—
herbert

Hold on... Tim denies evolution?
I due deference Tim, I do think you know you're scripture well, but I don't see that a positive seeing as the bible has shown to be contradictory and is considered somewhat immoral.
I've never really understood how someone can know the bible intimately and still be religious, but that's just my own view.

—
TrulyBritish

The problem is that the Bible is too vague, and you can ask ten people how they understand a verse or passage, and get ten completely different answers. When I was a Christian, I studied denominational theology, and was stunned at the vastly different interpretations given to the same passages. The problem isn't that an individual person doesn't know what the Bible says, but that no one really knows what it says. It's simply too vague and subjective. As a personal book of spirituality, it's fine, but other than that, it can serve no real, absolute, or objective purpose.

—
Matt

wow all this going back and forth, the atheists being so blatant in their total disregard for God is new and shocking to me, bt i hold no jugdement. One thing i can say is i sure hope you atheists are correct for yourselves sake because if your not just imagine how hot hell will be FOREVER and EVER. Maybe because am from africa and am a lady but theres not many atheists in this part of the world. WOW

—
africa

africa,
Our "total disregard for God", regardless of how you may view it, is not one of anger or any other kind of negative emotion. It's simply that there is no objective, empirical evidence for the existence of such a being, that we don't accept one. Thanks to the enlightenment period of European history, and it's advances in philosophy and science, we began to be able to think critically of such things, and realized that we could doubt such things due to lack of evidence, and not be afraid of the backlash be the church-controlled state. Don't take our disbelief as anything other than an acceptance of lack of evidence, not anything against believers.

—
Matt

Matt,
Well said - hear, hear.

—
Tony

Timothy - would you at least admit that you are fallible? Isn't it possible that you are falsely convinced that God has revealed certain things to you, when in fact he hasn't. I'm not saying God is necessarily at fault here. I'm saying that given the fact that God hasn't revealed to you *what* you know for certain, then it's possible that you are convinced that God has revealed things to you, things you mistakenly think came from God, but in fact didn't come from God. Essentially you are piggy backing your God in on the presupposition that you can trust your experiences, namely the experience of revelation. Your Godly presupposition requires the same presupposition that a naturalist would hold to(that one has experiences, and normative facts exists - as they do in every epistemolgy), but you also smuggle God in. Why bother? To achieve certainty? I can give you certainty. Just believe everything I say. I am the way, the truth, the life.

—
Aaron

What is truly ironic here, is that Timothy claims the "Athiest worldview" (whatever that is) dictates that we are simply the product of random events, when in fact, most Christians (I can't speak for Timothy specifically) came to God through chance. You really cannot deny this fact. Most Christians just got lucky. By chance they were born into a family in a country where it was acceptable (or even demanded of them) to believe in the Christian God. They (or he) could have just have easily - or even more likely have - been born into Hindu culture, where Christianity is not even known about. What about those poor souls by the way? While it may be true that some people have been brought up under other religious banners, or no religion at all and still managed to find God, it doesn't account for the poor souls that never heard of this Jesus guy.

That is some seriously good luck.

Irony.

—
Aaron

Aaron,
Tim doesn't believe that he came to god through sheer chance - I refer you to his "answer" to a question previously posted by me.

I can't wait to see what he replies to you - if he does reply at all, he's been mighty quiet this past while.

—
Tony

Aaron, consider GK Chesterton's line from his book entitled "Orthodoxy": “Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.”
― G.K. Chesterton
Sorta seems to jive with what you're saying. I'm telling you (skeptics and atheists): there is a principled rational difference between Biblicism and Catholicism. To go after The philosophy/worldview of Biblicists isn't to go after authentic Christianity.

—
herbert

Herbert,
I'm sorry but your claim to "authentic" Christianity doesn’t cut any ice. Tim and people like him say you're wrong. You say he's wrong. And the Muslims and the Mormons and the Jews and the Sikhs and the Hindus and the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Zoroastrians all say that you and each other are all wrong. Well, from the view point of a disinterested outsider (me) you can't all be right. Therefore, you must all be wrong.

—
Tony

Tony - thanks for the link. I read Timothy's response, and I am not shocked that he would respond that way. I too, like you, want to be charitable in my interpretation of Timothy's response, but it really is challenging.

—
Aaron

Just reading some of Timothy's responses, and I've noticed he likes to use the phrase "if Atheism is true...etc". I want to clear this up once and for all.

Atheism does not posit the claim that no Gods exist. Atheism is the rejection of a positive claim that a god exists (the key word being the *claim* - as in the *claim* to knowledge regarding a particular fact). There is a huge difference between rejecting a claim on the basis of little or no evidence, and suggesting the opposite is true. Timothy seems good with logic, so I'm assuming he knows what a true dichotomy is right? Yet he still makes this mistake frequently, even though I have seen many people on this website point out that his naive use of the dictionary definition is not complete. This appears dishonest to me. He seems smarter than that.

—
Aaron

...continued...

Nevertheless, I will try and set him straight. A (without) THEOS (God) - its etymology gives away the real semantic difference here. Atheism in its most standard form, is an agnostic position, in that it asserts the knowledge that proves God's existence is incomplete. This doesn't mean there aren't some "strong" Atheists who *do* positively reject the fact (not just the claim), but this is not what is required for one to be an Atheist. Given that existential claims incur a burden of proof in order to substantiate them, until they are substantiated, they cannot be assumed to be true (nor false). Therefore, the position of agnosticism regarding the existence of God, leads one to be (as a simple matter of fact) without god (a-theos), and therefore; an atheist.

—
Aaron

...continued...

Now, you might say why does this matter... Its just semantics. Well, it matters because when Timothy continually make statements like "if Atheism is true...etc", it makes it hard for sensible people who understand the difference between a true dichotomy, to not laugh uncontrollably at his commentary.

Every time Timothy says "if Atheism is true...etc" he is basically saying "if you are of the belief that theistic claims have not yet met their burden of proof...etc". This really matters because the Atheist is rejecting the *claim* to knowledge, not the fact. It is the position that the Theist's *claim* is unjustified. This does not mean the Atheist believes no god exists with any real certainty (even though some may), it means the Atheist is rejecting the *claim* not the fact that the claim points to.

—
Aaron

...continued...

Given that Atheism is the rejection of a *claim*, you can see how naive it is to try and define an opponent's world view by one particular claim they reject. Every time Timothy uses that phrase "if Atheism is true...", Timothy is in fact constructing a straw man regarding my world view. He (Timothy) cannot possibly know what my position is, only one thing that it is not. He (Timothy) cannot possibly know that under my world view, "everything is random" when he knows nothing about my actual worldview. For all he knows, I could believe a Cartesian Demon is responsible for the reality we all live in, which would make his description of my worldview demonstrably wrong.

—
Aaron

tl;dr (too long; didn't read)

Every time Timothy starts a sentence with: "if Atheism is true", it is almost guaranteed to be a straw man argument, simply because he cannot possibly know what my beliefs actually are, when he is only equipped with the knowledge of one thing that I am without.

—
Aaron

Aaron,
Surprisingly enough I did read despite the length! If you've read some of Tim's "answers", you'll see that they often consist of setting up straw men, or re-wording statements to suit himself, or simply ignoring the question in favour of one he'd rather answer as opposed to the one he was asked. It is, as you say, challenging. It might be interesting to you (it was to me) to read up on presuppositionalism, which is Tim's basic worldview. It explains a lot about his style of "debate". He isn't interested in determining the truth, he's more interested in insulating himself from it.

—
Tony

Aaron,

"Every time Timothy says 'if Atheism is true...etc' he is basically saying 'if you are of the belief that theistic claims have not yet met their burden of proof...etc'."

Why do you think it is of any benefit to you to redefine the word "atheism" to mean something other than this? Do you think that God will cease to exist if you define the word "atheism" differently? Do you truly believe the concept of a reality with no God will suddenly be coherent if you use a different dictionary?

Why are avowed atheists so interested in distancing themselves from atheism? Very peculiar.

—
Timothy McCabe

Timothy,

I don't need you to agree with my definition of Atheism in order to reject your arguments that lead with "if Atheism is true...etc" simply because even if we use your definition, it it still a straw man. Your opening sentence here: http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=431 "If Atheism is true...", can clearly be demonstrated to be a straw man, because even if I positively attest that no god exists (using your definition of Atheism), it still doesn't cover all the things that I could posit *do* exist to explain why everything is not "chance" or "purely random".

This is why using "if Atheism is true...etc" is a straw man, and is problematic. It doesn't tell you anything about my worldview. I could not believe in God, but still believe in any number of things. That's the point I'm trying to get across to you. You need to substitute "Atheist" for "Naturalist", or something alike. I don't need you to agree with the proper definition of Atheism in this instance.

—
Aaron

...continued...

Interesting though, that you couldn't actually defeat my argument regarding your straw man, so instead you argued something that was completely peripheral to the point.

Let's see if you can actually respond to my last question without going off track. I have bent over backwards and granted you your (naive) definition of Atheism, just so you don't have any excuses not to respond. Hopefully you can do so honestly, and without being evasive.

Note: Aaron made 5 comments that I responded to, 4.5 of which focused on my use of the word "atheism". Now he is calling his chosen primary topic "peripheral" to his point.

Aaron, I assume you are referring to your Cartesian Demon, since you gave no other specifics regarding how I was fighting a straw man. If a person believes that "a Cartesian Demon is responsible for the reality we all live in", then he believes in a sovereign personal creator, namely the Cartesian Demon. Such a person is clearly a theist, not an atheist. Otherwise, I'd like to introduce you to some married bachelors.

So... You have explained how *if* I believed in a Cartesian Demon or God, I would be a Theist. Well done Timothy. What about the other possibilities? Can you name them all? Do you think that when you say "if atheism is true" you are accounting for them all? Are you saying that any and all beliefs (however ridiculous they might be) anyone could ever possibly hold regarding "the reality we all live in" must necessarily lead to a deity? Are you saying that without this deity to explain our existence our world would be "ultimately the direct result of purely random, uncoordinated and undependable accidents". Please don't answer some other question about my hair color or the weather. Just confirm for me and everyone that there can't possibly be anything in my worldview (proven or unproven) that explains reality without an appeal to a deity.

—
Aaron

And just for the record, I asked you several questions. You opted for the lowest hanging fruit.

I asked you if you were fallible. No response.
I asked you if it was possible that you were wrong about your divine revelation. No response.
I then argued that your presupposition was as epistemically flawed as mine, plus a bit more. No response.
I then argued that your argument from chance was ironic, given Christians are what they are out of chance. No response.
I then gave you a definition of atheism in order to explain why making statements such as "if atheism is true..." are laughable. You responded.

Did you really just say that you responded to all of my comments?

I'm sure you have (what you consider) a good answer for all of these points. But, you didn't actually respond. Please don't be dishonest by claiming that you did.

—
Aaron

Aaron,

"I asked you if you were fallible. No response."

Of course I am. Ad hominem and irrelevant.

"I asked you if it was possible that you were wrong about your divine revelation. No response."

Of course it is. Ad hominem and irrelevant.

"I then argued that your presupposition was as epistemically flawed as mine, plus a bit more. No response."

I couldn't take your complaint seriously. An epistemology that declares all conclusions to be the result of random accidents is no epistemology at all.

"I then argued that your argument from chance was ironic, given Christians are what they are out of chance. No response."

Tony responded quite accurately for me. (Thanks Tony)

"Did you really just say that you responded to all of my comments?"

Nope. I said I responded to the last 5 comments you made. Not all the comments you made.

"Just confirm for me that there can't possibly be anything in my worldview that explains reality without an appeal to a deity."

Bingo.

—
Timothy McCabe

2 x "Of course I am. Ad hominem and irrelevant."

Please explain how asking if one is fallible is an ad hominem attack? Its a question. I need to know what your position on this is, so I don't attack a straw man.

Please explain how if I ask "if its possible that you are wrong" is an ad hominem attack? Again, I need this information so I don't create a straw man out of your position. Surely I can ask this?

"I couldn't take your complaint seriously"

This is exactly how I feel about presuppositional apologetics. That doesn't mean I ignore it simply because I don't agree.

"Nope. I said I responded to the last 5 comments you made. Not all the comments you made."

No, you didn't. You said "Aaron made 5 comments that I responded to". Again, what you *meant* to say, and what you *actually* did say are two entirely different things.

—
Aaron

"Bingo."

Ok... given that my argument is not predicated on whether or not one's world view is true or coherent, please demonstrate for me and anyone patient enough to still be reading how you *know* that it is impossible for one to hold a world view that doesn't invoke a deity, and doesn't rely on chance. Just keep in mind that simply claiming that any such world view would be illogical or contradictory is not good enough. As I just mentioned, this is not about coherency or truth. This is about whether one can possibly hold a world view (coherent or not) that meets this criteria.

This deity must be (in the eyes of the holder of such a worldview) a God, and divine in nature or status.

Until you can actually demonstrate how you *know* this, any argument that contains "if atheism is true..." can be dismissed out of hand.

—
Aaron

Aaron,
Wow, it didn't take long for Tim to play the ad hominem card with you, did it?! Doubtless by now you'll have realized that this is Tim's fallback position whenever someone has the nerve to mention his flawed use of logic and his dishonest, desperately transparent and tedious debating "tactics".

—
Tony

Aaron,

"given that my argument is not predicated on whether or not one's world view is true or coherent..." and "...this is not about coherency or truth..." and "...(coherent or not)..."

You are making it explicitly clear that your "argument" was intended by you to be meaningless nonsense addressing meaningless nonsense for the purpose of meaningless nonsense when you first presented it, fully expecting that he who believes something to be true may not believe it to be true, and that when your argument has proven what it has proven the result may still remain unproven, and it is therefore evident that there is no point in continuing this conversation.

Have fun playing with your square circles...

—
Timothy McCabe

Oh wow. I should have been more clear. I guess I shouldn't assume you will be charitable when interpreting my comments. Let me clear that up.

I am NOT saying the holder of the worldview doesn't believe his own worldview, or think that it is untrue, or think it is incoherent. I am saying that it is irrelevant whether you AGREE with their worldview. When you say "if atheism is true...[everything is random]" you are implicitly asserting that no person HAS a worldview that accounts for a non-random universe without appeal to a deity. How exactly are you certain of this? Would you care to actually answer the question? I really can't wait to hear what you have to say, given I already know at least one person who does hold to this worldview.

—
Aaron

I was browsing the website earlier, and came across this interesting bit of information in Timothy's profile:

"Unfortunately, this vague definition really does virtually nothing to explain Christianity. It actually produces more questions than answers." (He is talking about the definition of Christianity).

Note the double standard here. When I tried to enlighten Timothy on the nuances of what Atheism actually means above and beyond the standard definition, he accuses me of "redefin[ing] the word 'atheism' to mean something other than [the standard definition]" even though I am doing exactly what he is doing, trying to explain in more detail WHY we don't believe in God.

I don't really care to get into a semantic argument about this with Timothy again, as he has already shown that he is not willing to budge on his trivial definition of what atheism is, but this level of dishonesty and blatant double standard is really quite appalling, and certainly worthy of being pointed out to all..

—
Aaron

Aaron,
I see that Timothy has played his very, very last trump card i.e. saying that "...there is no point in continuing this conversation". He did that with me too so don't feel too bad that he doesn't want to play with you any more. I don't think it's personal. It just means he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

—
Tony

Aaron,

"I should have been more clear."

I apologize for my part in the apparent misunderstanding as well.

"...you are implicitly asserting that no person HAS a worldview that accounts for a non-random universe without appeal to a deity. How exactly are you certain of this? Would you care to actually answer the question?"

In short, unless there is a singular intentional coordinator, events will be unintended and uncoordinated.

A rough deductive syllogism flows as follows:

P1. If there is no God, there is no single sovereign entity coordinating absolutely everything.

P2. If there is no single sovereign entity coordinating absolutely everything, then something is uncoordinated.

C. If there is no God, something is uncoordinated.

[continued]

—
Timothy McCabe

[continued]

Note that whatever results from this uncoordinated process is the result of an uncoordinated process. If this uncoordinated process in any way resulted in a human's conclusion, then that conclusion is the result of an uncoordinated process. If a conclusion did not result from an uncoordinated process, then it resulted exclusively and completely from processes coordinated by a singular grand coordinator.

A similar argument can be presented for unintended processes.

Let me know where this argument fails in your mind -- which premises, implicit or explicit, are false; which conclusions do not follow from the premises; or why the ultimate conclusions are irrelevant to the point you think I am trying to make.

"I already know at least one person who does hold to this worldview."

I would be interested in hearing about it.

—
Timothy McCabe

Timothy,

This does answer my question, so thanks for finally giving me something concrete.

Before I send a complete reply, I want to clear something up so I don't give you a straw man argument. Aren't you really showing (amongst other conclusions) that "God" and "a single sovereign entity coordinating absolutely everything" are the same thing?

Please correct me if I got this wrong.

—
Aaron

Aaron,

They are not equivalent -- conceptually though, the latter is a type of the former, which I'm guessing is what you meant.

I should also clarify the meaning of "coordinate" as I am using it here to help prevent unintentional straw man rebuttals:

Coordinate - To bring different elements into a relationship that is ensured to be satisfying.

Tim's argument fails because order can and does arise from disorder without any outside intelligence “coordinating” it. We have evidence from the real world that shows this. Volcanic basalt (a disordered mass of molten rock) arranges itself into regular hexagonal columns through perfectly normal physical processes. A dish of salt water will evaporate to produce regularly shaped salt crystals in the same way. You can use deductive syllogisms to “prove” whatever you like but if there’s no evidence then the syllogism fails.

—
Tony

(Cont)
My point being that, to paraphrase what Laplace allegedly said, available explanations for the natural world work perfectly well without the god hypothesis.

—
Tony

Tony, thanks for your comments.

Timothy, we were discussing whether it was fair for you to use "if atheism is true...", and I specifically pointed you to an instance where your doing so could not be justified as you could not demonstrate that someone might believe in an ordered universe without an appeal to a deity. http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=431. This means the conclusion you should be aiming for is more like:

If Atheism is true, then Everything is ultimately the direct result of purely random, uncoordinated and undependable accidents.

or, I would even be willing to accept something like:

It is impossible for the universe to be the result of ordered and dependable events, without an appeal to God.

NOT

If there is no God, something is uncoordinated

or even

If Atheism is true, something is uncoordinated

[continued]

—
Aaron

[continued]

You didn't state "something is coordinated", you stated "Everything is ultimately the direct result of purely random, uncoordinated and undependable accidents." That, is not quite the same thing. Your original comment is far more specific. You see the thing is, I've found that Theists tend to accumulate (sometimes) very small errors when reaching their conclusions. A bit of equivocating here, a bit of special pleading there, and voilà. I am not trying to attack you personally (please - no more unfounded claims of ad-hominem attacks), I'm just pointing out that I'm being pedantic about language, because theists are often careless.

[continued]

—
Aaron

[continued]

"If there is no single sovereign entity coordinating absolutely everything, then something is uncoordinated."

This is actually a watered down version of the conclusion we are trying to reach, and what you are supposed to be providing evidence for. It seems to me all you have done is nest what is a modification of your original assertion as a *premise* in your argument. As it stands so far, neither I, nor any other Atheist, has any reason to believe that this premise is true. Simply stating it is true, over and over in different ways does not make it true. Putting it into a syllogism is a good start, but your conclusion needs to consist of what you are actually trying to prove.

You argument is also invalid as it begs the question. Can you see it? Sure hope so...

—
Aaron

Aaron,

You seem to be saying the following three things appear to be problematic from your perspective in my claim:

1. The premises are false: P2 is unjustified and there exists an Atheist who will not agree to it.

3. The conclusion is irrelevant: The conclusion of my syllogism does not demonstrate the veracity of my claim (and is thus irrelevant).

If I understood you correctly, please tell me which of these issues is the biggest, which you would like me to address first, as I would prefer to respond one at a time (to prevent tl;dr, among other things). If I did not understand you correctly, please explain where I have misunderstood.

Thanks.

—
Timothy McCabe

Well, we can put validity aside for a second, as even if you showed it was valid you still need to convince me of the premise, and even then we are still stuck with it not solving the actually problem (in my opinion).

I'm really just concerned that your argument doesn't address your opening statement made here http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=431, which is what I was specifically criticising as an instance of you using "if atheism is true...".

In my previous response I gave you what I think are two reasonable conclusions that you should be aiming for:

"If Atheism is true, then Everything is ultimately the direct result of purely random, uncoordinated and undependable accidents."

or

"It is impossible for the universe to be the result of ordered and dependable events, without an appeal to God."

You are welcome to disagree that these are unreasonable, but considering one of them is your words exactly I think they seem fair.

—
Aaron

Aaron,

Based on your last comment, we will momentarily grant that my argument is logically valid and that the premises are acceptable. Given these things, how does "something is uncoordinated" mean that "Everything is uncoordinated"?

Any single process that isn't ensured or guaranteed to result in satisfying relationships (any process that is not coordinated) could hypothetically result in unsatisfying relationships. It is impossible to know whether it will or not, since there is no guarantee. If the nature of the relationship between X and Y is not guaranteed to be satisfying, then the nature of that relationship may be such that X and Y relating together affect the relationship between A and B, even though there is a supposed guarantee that A and B would be related in a satisfying way. The supposed guarantee between A and B is thus no guarantee at all, because the nature of the relationship between X and Y was not guaranteed to be satisfying.

[continued]

—
Timothy McCabe

[continued]

To elaborate, it may be posited that the relationship between X and Y would be satisfying if that relationship simply does not alter the satisfying nature of the relationship between A and B. However, if there is no guarantee that the relationship between X and Y will be satisfying in this manner, then it follows that there can be no guarantee that the relationship between A and B will be satisfying either. Indeed, since A and B can hypothetically represent any relationship at all, then if there exists some relationship X and Y which has no guarantee of satisfaction, there can be no guarantee of satisfaction in any relationship whatsoever.

[continued]

—
Timothy McCabe

[continued]

Let's look at a specific mammoth of an example. If the relationship between A and B is that "if something is (A), then it is (B)", (an identity relationship between a thing and itself) and if there is no guarantee regarding the nature of the relationship between this specific A and B (as a result of there being no guarantee between X and Y), then there can be no guarantee between the relationship of any fact and itself. Even were something to be true, that would not mean that it is true.

Therefore, without all events being perfectly coordinated by a single Sovereign Coordinator there can be no guaranteed laws of reasoning. Without guaranteed laws of reasoning, there can be no justification for any belief. Without justification of beliefs, there can be no knowledge. Further, even if the guarantee exists, were the guarantee not communicated to us we would be unaware of it and any beliefs arrived at by presupposing it would be thoroughly unjustified.

[continued]

—
Timothy McCabe

[continued]

Thus, it is impossible for the universe to be guaranteed or ensured to be the result of ordered and dependable events, without an appeal to a Sovereign, Communicating Guarantor. Further, if there is no Sovereign, Communicating Guarantor, then Everything is ultimately unguaranteed.

Let me know if this does not address your primary concern, and why.

Thanks.

—
Timothy McCabe

To clarify above, when I said "if something is (A), then it is (B)", what I meant was simply the Law of Identity... "if something is, then it is", where the first part of the law is represented by the letter (A) and the last part is represented by the letter (B). I apologize if that was confusing, but I hope this clarifies my intended meaning.

—
Timothy McCabe

Tim,
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that I accepted the validity of your argument (which I don't) or the validity of your conclusion (which I don't), how on earth can you possibly get from (A) the conclusion that there must be a sovereign, coordinating guarantor to (B) the next stage which is that this alleged guarantor *must* then be Jesus? You could as well come to the conclusion that this alleged sovereign coordinating guarantor was Allah, or Yahweh, or Zeus, or Odin, or Ra, or Shiva, or any of a hundred other “gods”. There is absolutely nothing in your argument (such as is it) which leads of necessity to Jesus - except of course if it’s the conclusion you’ve come to already.

—
Tony

Timothy,

What I said:

"even if you showed it was valid you still need to convince me of the premise"

What you said:

"Based on your last comment, we will momentarily grant that my argument is logically valid and that the premises are acceptable"

How on earth does me stating that "you still need to convince me of the premise" give you the impression that "based on my last comment" I find the premise acceptable?

I really am struggling. Is this intentional? Am I missing something?

[cont]

—
Aaron

[cont]

In my previous comments I made it very clear that you are still trying to argue the wrong conclusion:

This was NOT the point I asked you to address. I specifically asked you to address the actual conclusion:

"If Atheism is true, then Everything is ultimately the direct result of purely random, uncoordinated and undependable accidents.

or, I would even be willing to accept something like:

It is impossible for the universe to be the result of ordered and dependable events, without an appeal to God."

[cont]

—
Aaron

Instead, you have attempted demonstrated something like:

"If Theism is true, then Everything is coordinated by a coordinator, which is consistent in some distant way to the law of identity"

Again, you have constructed a nice straw man, and ignored what I actually asked you to demonstrate. All you have done is waffled on about the law of identity, then somehow made this wild leap from "therefore" god exists and he magically created everything or else we couldn't reason.

Please answer the question I asked.

Actually you know what, I don't even know if I could be bothered anymore. You really have done a good job of taking the wind out of my sails, not by the merits of you argument, but by your commitment to avoid answering specific questions posed to you.

—
Aaron

Just a side note, as off topic as your response is (well, maybe not so much off topic but more sidestepping my question) I will try to respond when I get a chance, as there are some things I see wrong with it notwithstanding the fact that it doesn't answer my original question.

—
Aaron

FAO Aaron
I’m getting a bit like you i.e. part of me couldn’t be bothered any more too. I was discussing same-sex-marriage with some self-professed “reasonable” Christians on another forum recently (patheos.com in case you’re interested) and it was unbelievable how quickly the Christian side of the discussion descended into half-baked excuses and rationalisations, straw man arguments, assertions with no evidence, egregious abuse of “logic”, blatantly avoiding questions and just plain old-fashioned nonsense. Sorry, just venting, feel free to ignore.

—
Tony

Aaron,

"How on earth does me stating that 'you still need to convince me of the premise' give you the impression that 'based on my last comment' I find the premise acceptable?"

As I stated, it seemed to me that you had 3 issues with my argument. I asked you which was most important so I could address them 1 at a time. I thought you said the relevancy of the conclusion was most important, so that was the only issue I addressed. If we were to get through that, then I would be happy to address your other concerns as well.

[continued]

—
Timothy McCabe

[continued]

"Instead, you have attempted to demonstrate something like: 'If Theism is true, then Everything is coordinated by a coordinator, which is consistent in some distant way to the law of identity'"

What I believe I actually demonstrated was: "it is impossible for the universe to be [(A) guaranteed or ensured to be the result of ordered and dependable events], without an appeal to [(B) a Sovereign, Communicating Guarantor]. Further, if [(C) there is no Sovereign, Communicating Guarantor], then Everything is ultimately [(D) unguaranteed]."

(A) is necessitated by "coordinated".
(B) is synonymous with "God"
(C) is identical to "Atheism is true"
(D) necessitates "uncoordinated"

This means that what I believe I demonstrated was: "it is impossible for the universe to be coordinated without an appeal to God. Further, if Atheism is true, then Everything is ultimately uncoordinated."

[continued]

—
Timothy McCabe

[continued]

I believe I have demonstrated exactly what you asked me for. Both of your "actual conclusions" have been demonstrated. If I have not made things clear enough for you to follow, I apologize. I'm not sure how to spell it out more clearly for you.

God bless.

—
Timothy McCabe

Tim,
A few straightforward questions.
1. Would the emergence via evaporation of regularly shaped crystals of salt from seawater qualify as an "ordered and dependable event" as you mentioned above?
2. If (1) is the case, are you saying that this process can only be understood by positing the existence of a Sovereign, Communicating Guarantor?
3. If (2) is the case, how do you get from “Sovereign, Communicating Guarantor” to “Jesus?

—
Tony

Hey guys what's up. Why everybody so much after our Timothy, eh? ;-) Nobody seems to be asking anything from Mr Richard...seems like everybody gone atheist...smile. Anyway I take up this job..may relieve Timothy for a moment which he might be feeling need of. Tony you really a hell of persuer of thing I must say. And your style of writing is good.

Anyway, so Mr Richard, I came to this site through one of your essay link about "Why I am not a Christian?"

Are you atheist? ...or whatever you call it like. My simple question is how does one become a Atheist? So you don't believe in GOD or whatever..is that so? Cause I think..whatever all those typical ..naturalism..or whatever logic you talk about doesn't lead someone to be non believer in GOD,, or does it? Maybe I miss logic faculty like you do...smile ...have I mean not otherwise.

Secondly, even when you put your point of view, why you avoid straight and obvious argument(natural logic) but sound more like who you oppose?

Truth is hard to define, lets accept that first. Scriptures I personally feel precondition a person to believe in something he otherwise might not have, but for the limitations of the human life which force a mortal to seek a savior. Science on the other hand is itself a question for most part, which I actually admire, so can't be used as a conclusion. Truth would then mean differently to different people depending upon their respective realities of life, which reflect to him what he then believes in. Truth is not independent of the human mind, for either you follow faith or you follow logic, its the mind that ultimately decides. So until we decode the mind completely, we shall not be in a position to define truth.

—
Arpit

Carrier's response made extreme sense. The other one did not make sense.

—
Josh

One of Carriers longer responses, as he is frantically trying to cover up the fact that naturalistic epistemology is an infinite regression and it provides no answer for the problem of normativity.

—
Chad

Have one question.

1.How does the christrian world view reach the measurement of truth?

—
innocent

Chad
Tim says he can escape infinite regress by saying that god is the standard of "truth" but since he can't say how he would tell if god was telling the truth except by saying god can't lie, it's kind of a moot point.

—
Anonymous

Leave A Comment

Please leave a comment. Profanity is prohibited, along with any kind of threat,
terrorist communication, etc, etc. Play nice and we won't delete your comment.

In addition to being added to this page, your comment will also show up in our
Twitter feed.